In retrospect, it makes a lot of sense. Genesis was huge in NA/Europe, but it was considered somewhat of a failure in Japan.
Sega has always floundered with its home consoles — they released 3 competitors to the NES after all. Genesis ended up being more of a one-trick pony than any indication of longterm success.
I would agree, there are fundamental reasons that would suggest different outcomes for investments, and that's sort of an illustration of why you can't time the market. Even if you know the truth, and you believe that the market will always eventually reflect the truth, it's difficult to know how long that correction will take.
Our tech scene has been largely driven by fintech and a few unicorns. And our unicorns tend to be much more bust than boom — Groupon being the highest profile one. Not sure if it's correlation or causation, but VC investment tends to be more conservative, and the ones I do hear about are mostly fintech.
On top of which, Chicago wasn't all that tech friendly. Pay has been rather stagnant, and promotions above senior engineer didn't exist before Covid/remote stretched everything out. The exception to comp has been prop trading firms, which make oodles of money but... trader culture dominates over eng.
I lived in Chicago and, when I was there, there were a lot of good people but the overall technical culture was mediocre--probably not worse than anywhere else, but not befitting what was once (and could be) among the greatest cities in the world.
The presumption, except in high-frequency trading, is that the talented people go to the coasts (which is bullshit, because I've spent a lot of time on the coasts, and it's all socioeconomic) and so a certain fratty culture dominates.
If WFH is permanent, it could be one of the best things for Chicago in a long time. It really is a great place to live--if you can find a good company. I also didn't find the weather to be that bad. April-November is a slightly cooler (nicer, in summer) version of the same thing we have on the east coast, and the winter tends to be mostly fine with only an occasional -20 cold blast.
In my view, Chicago's biggest negative is its 1-2 hour drive radius. The city's beautiful. Northern Illinois, not as much. Starved Rock is nice, and the Indiana Dunes are alright, but most of the cool stuff in the Midwest is 3-5+ hours away. The flat landscape also suffers due to billboards and powerlines; the topography makes the city itself so much more more compelling, but it means the outlying areas get really ugly--because if there's any garbage within a mile radius, you're going to see it. On the other hand, it has one of the cheapest and most connected airports in the world, so that might make up for it.
If they were actual enhancements, I doubt the Zig Foundation would care. A company making a closed source release doesn't seem to be the point of ire here.
The issue is, another company has forked Zig, made 0, or negative enhancements, and the Zig foundation is making sure to distance itself from the fork incase anyone gets burned by Zen. You don't want the first impression of your new language to be tarnished by some commercial company who dumped everything in marketing and 0 in development.
The GPL wouldn't help in this case at all. It's very clear that the Zig Foundation doesn't care about the changes, it cares about it's reputation. On the contrary having a high quality commercial fork would probably be a good thing for Zig (see MySQL <-> Percona, Cassandra <-> Datastax, Postgres <-> Citus)
“Since then, “No. 2” has resigned from their position at connectFree, but won’t be able to contribute to the Zig project for some time because of a “non-compete” clause present in the contract.“
So why do you care if No. 2 is not able to work on Zig if you don’t value the contributions he’s made to Zen?
Maybe they believe that No. 2 is capable of making valuable contributions, but that the specific contributions made at the direction of the Zen founder aren’t valuable.
> 1. Why do you believe that No. 2 can make valuable contributions to Zig if you do not value his contributions to Zen?
Because the project does not care for Zen's desired direction and following this direction is the form No. 2's contributions to Zen would have taken as they were a contractor to Zen.
The contributions No. 2 would make to the Zig project as an individual and independent of Zen are… unrelated to the direction Zen wants.
> 2. Why do you believe that No. 2 would be a potential contributor to Zig if he weren’t otherwise legally restricted?
Because No. 2 is the number two contributor to Zig and is actively stopped from contributing by the NCC. That's literally in the statement.
If I'm not mistaken, if all code authors agree on the license change, then, the new release can be made fully GPL. While the old copy will be still available as MIT.
A malicious actor can pretend that they merged MIT parts with new GPL parts, but I think, it would not take a lot of time, until such merging would become technically hard, and the code can be effectively converted into GPL.
However, since Zen's guy was a contributor, it's probably not possible to get all authors' permission to change the license for the entire Zig codebase.
Lifecycles map closer to how the underlying UI layer works, but not to developer expectations. I've lost countless hours to desynced implementations such as failing to account for componentDidUpdate when overriding componentDidMount or missing a corresponding componentWillUnmount cleanup.
The Zig language doesn't need libc, but because it also includes a fully functional C compiler, it ships with musl source and glibc headers for better crossplatform support.
WeWork is a prime example of why this is nothing like 1998. The street did not allow a hyper-inflated company to go public, they spoke, got the CEO fired, blocked the IPO, and are more or less dictating that they become "profitable" before any news of the having an IPO comes out...
Ok. To get to 1999 levels, now name several dozen more.
The angle where something like this could happen would be the advertising bubble, if there is one, collapsing. Then there are many companies who are currently quite solvent and profitable that suddenly wouldn't be.
I suspect a number of those are the types of companies that if they had to turn a profit, could do so by cutting back investment and taking profits, in addition to reasonable amounts of corporate restructuring and investment. Many of them are at least plausibly in that category. Some of them are not (TSLA for instance is not in a position where they can coast right now).
1999 was full of companies where even if they had captured 100% of the relevant market at the time, would still not be turning a profit or be viable businesses. They were fundamentally built on the presumption that 2015-levels of internet penetration and hardware capabilities in the first world would be obtained in 2001 or so. It wasn't just a matter of "they were investing what could have been profits into further growth", it was a lot more like "they were taking VC money and setting it on fire and calling that a business model". It is not the same today. (Modulo my caveat about advertiser money above.) It may be bad. But 1999 was insane.
I can easily see a correction, even one we'd consider large. But I would bet the "correction" doesn't undo more than two years of stock market growth when it happens, and it may not even manage to cause a recession, or if it does, a very minimal one.
Both have significant revenues and are arguably still in their growth stage. I don't like either stocks, but even these names aren't comparable to what was happening during the dotcom bubble.
Li-ion cells provides 3.6V, which makes them incompatible with traditional alkaline or NiMH. I don't think we've invented a standard for Li-ion batteries yet.
Sega has always floundered with its home consoles — they released 3 competitors to the NES after all. Genesis ended up being more of a one-trick pony than any indication of longterm success.